Evaluation of the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

Previous page | ToC | Next page

6.0 Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation. The evaluation recommendations are directed to the SAR ADM Committee in light of its responsibility for the overall management of SARA implementation.

Recommendation 1a

Evidence shows that the program is not adequately fulfilling its mandate as a directed program. It has been largely ineffective at strategically identifying priorities on which to focus program funding. This limitation is attributed first and foremost to the fact that the achievement of HSP intended outcomes is closely linked to the implementation of the wider federal SAR Program. The SAR Program faces challenges that must first be resolved before the HSP can possibly fulfill its mandate. Such challenges include slow progress in the identification of critical habitats and the development of SAR recovery and action plans. Such guides are needed to help focus HSP project activities. These activities are all beyond the current scope of the HSP; yet, slow progress in these aspects of the SAR Program affects the program’s ability to strategically focus HSP funding. In response to a recommendation of the 2006 evaluation of the SAR Program, the core departments/agency had committed to developing a comprehensive federal vision and strategy to support the preparation and implementation of SAR recovery action plans. Recent follow-up has shown that little progress has been made to articulate and implement this vision and to determine its implications for SAR programs, including the HSP. In light of these considerations, it is important that the core departments/agency increase efforts to identify critical habitats and to implement the management response to the 2006 SAR evaluation recommendation pertaining to the development of a comprehensive federal vision and strategy to support the preparation and implementation of recovery action plans. It is therefore recommended that members of the SAR ADM Committee develop guidance documents to ensure a more timely identification of critical habitats and development of action plans for the protection and recovery of species at risk and their habitats. 

Recommendation 1b

It is recommended that members of the SAR ADM Committee clearly articulate the expected role of the HSP in the implementation of the wider federal SAR Program and revise the HSP funding allocation criteria and formula accordingly.

Recommendation 2

Another factor impeding the HSP’s ability to strategically focus its funding is the uneven capacity of the environmental NGO community to develop and implement quality project proposals that address HSP priorities, combined with the program’s limited capacity to reach out to new potential funding applicants and strategic partners that might be able to respond to the program’s priorities. Various stakeholders believe that regional staff have a central role to play in developing NGO capacity and in articulating projects that might interest new strategic partners. To date, most Environment Canada regional coordinators and their DFO and PCA regional counterparts have had difficulty engaging in this role due to limited resources being assigned to HSP delivery. Given that the expected role for the HSP in supporting the implementation of the SAR Program has yet to be fully articulated, it is premature to recommend the development of a precise plan for addressing these limitations. It is recommended that the SAR ADM Committee: first, conduct an assessment of the capacity required to adequately fulfill the HSP’s  mandate; and, secondly, ensure that the program has, or has access to, this required capacity.

Recommendation 3

Evidence collected as part of this evaluation illustrated the need to articulate intermediate outcomes that can be measured and reported on in a shorter time frame than the 20-year span HSP stakeholders have unanimously identified as being required for the achievement of the current intermediate outcomes (as found in the 2003 and 2008 HSP logic model) pertaining to species at risk. When evaluated against the 2003 and 2008 logic models, the program is unable to demonstrate the achievement of results beyond immediate outcomes. It is recommended that members of the SAR ADM Committee oversee revisions to the HSP logic model in view of identifying intermediate outcomes that can be measured and attributed to the program within a five-year timeframe.

Recommendation 4a

A key weakness of the HSP lies in its limited ability to reliably demonstrate the achievement of its intended outcomes. This is in part due to the fact that there is no formal and systematic mechanism in place for monitoring the collection and reporting of performance/outcome data by funding recipients. This absence of formal monitoring undermines confidence in the quality and accuracy of some of the performance/outcome information collected by funding recipients and subsequently reported by the program. While informal monitoring is being conducted by regional staff, they reported that they lack capacity to conduct monitoring site visits. Concurrently, funding recipients expressed the desire to receive more site visits from regional program staff. Furthermore, existing performance indicators are not well adapted to report on aquatic projects. In light of these considerations, it is recommended that members of the SAR ADM Committee oversee the development of a formal and systematic mechanism for monitoring the collection and reporting of performance/outcome data by funding recipients.

Recommendation 4b

Further, it is recommended that members of the SAR ADM Committee oversee improvements to monitoring and reporting of results of aquatic projects through adjustments to the existing program performance indicators.

Recommendation 5a

The most important factor identified as having affected the success of the program was the delays encountered in obtaining final departmental approval of HSP funding for the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 fiscal years. Final HSP funding approvals are within the purview of Environment Canada’s internal financial approvals processes. These delays impacted the projects, the funded organizations and the program’s reputation. A majority of DFO key informants suggested that this challenge would be in part mitigated if their department could separately administer the funds dedicated to aquatics projects, and that this would allow DFO to better serve its target stakeholders. It is thereby recommended that the SAR ADM Committee consider alternative options to expedite the administration of HSP funds, including the possibility for each participating department/agency to disburse HSP funds to its respective target stakeholders.

Recommendation 5b

Further, it is recommended that the ADM responsible for the HSP at Environment Canada identify ways to avoid delays in future Environment Canada financial approvals processes for HSP projects under the Department’s lead.

Previous page | ToC | Next page